Danek Duvall wrote:
> Garrett D'Amore wrote:
>
>> A bit of back history: In the case of 448, there were three members that
>> gave it a +1, in addition to the case sponsor, so I didn't see much risk
>> in going ahead and approving it. (Four full members reviewing the case
>> is pretty thorough, IMO.) In the case of 2009/430, that case did get
>> pushed through rather quickly with somewhat less review. (Although I did
>> ask the question about directory vs. file certs -- and got what I thought
>> was a reasonable answer -- before I +1'd the case.)
>>
>
> Sure; I don't want to overburden the process, but giving the rest of the
> community some time to voice their expertise would be not only polite, but
> essential in some cases. As long as a case can be reopened within its
> original timeout, though, this is mostly a matter of politeness.
>
>
>> Would two business days be sufficient time to allow folks to chime in
>> who need to?
>>
>
> Two full ones, probably so. At least, I think that brings it back to
> historical norms, though I'm sure some folks would like more time than
> that. Monday evening to Wednesday morning, though, isn't enough.
>
> Danek
>
Hmm... it would be "easy" to flag these cases since the time of the
PSARC meeting is well know. If a case is going to be unable to be
reviewed (due to short submission time), then it could either be
suppressed from the agenda, or given a special attribute so we skip over
it during the meeting.
The other thing we could institute is a "reduction in the timeout". So
if a case is reviewed by relevant members has +1's, but has not had the
requisite 48 hour minimum time, we could elect to "reduce" the original
timeout (which should have been a week or more originally) to the
original time of submission +48 hours. This would allow projects to
gain the benefit of having review/approval at meetings, while keeping
them from slipping in without the minimum 48 hour timer.
- Garrett
